|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 4:27:38 GMT
Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots, specks, and pores. You can see some of that explained here www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdfIf that process varies with time [and we don't know why, but see no reason to deny that it can] you would have an explanation for the L&P effect. Nobody is blindly following anybody. Solar physicists are reasonable people that look hard at the data. So what is the mechanism for the reduction in magnetic fields?? Lets have a good look at the data, do you have the up to date values so they can be plotted in the normal manner, which will also show us the missing groups in JAN/Feb/March? Since a spot is formed by concentration of smaller pieces of magnetic field, its magnetic field strength is determined by the degree of compaction. Solar magnetic fields generally consist of small 'elements' of field strength 1500 G. These are almost invisible, but when compacted together with other elements a higher field strength can result and that inhibits the solar convection and a darker [and cooler] spot can be seen. Livingston does not have telescope time every day so he will miss some [most] spots. An updated plot is: He has more time in June, so let's hope there are spots.
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 4:54:32 GMT
So what is the mechanism for the reduction in magnetic fields?? Lets have a good look at the data, do you have the up to date values so they can be plotted in the normal manner, which will also show us the missing groups in JAN/Feb/March? Since a spot is formed by concentration of smaller pieces of magnetic field, its magnetic field strength is determined by the degree of compaction. Solar magnetic fields generally consist of small 'elements' of field strength 1500 G. These are almost invisible, but when compacted together with other elements a higher field strength can result and that inhibits the solar convection and a darker [and cooler] spot can be seen. Livingston does not have telescope time every day so he will miss some [most] spots. An updated plot is: He has more time in June, so let's hope there are spots. So we have no mechanism and no data. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by annav on Jun 1, 2010 6:10:37 GMT
Since a spot is formed by concentration of smaller pieces of magnetic field, its magnetic field strength is determined by the degree of compaction. Solar magnetic fields generally consist of small 'elements' of field strength 1500 G. These are almost invisible, but when compacted together with other elements a higher field strength can result and that inhibits the solar convection and a darker [and cooler] spot can be seen. Livingston does not have telescope time every day so he will miss some [most] spots. An updated plot is: He has more time in June, so let's hope there are spots. So we have no mechanism and no data. I rest my case. Not a leg to stand on, let alone a case. You were shown the data. Note that the scale that the trend is displayed in is in 5 points per year. Sampling a population of possible observables is the way data is gathered in all scientific disciplines. The randomness of the choice will be defended, and appropriate errors will be given. My comment that it looks as if the trend from LP is going strong is due to the secondary effect on the size of the observed spots. We are getting tiny spots for cycle 24. If by mechanism you mean a full fledged theory, the answer is that the science is not settled in this field, as it is not settled for many fields where turbulent chaotic phenomena appear. One gathers data to guess at possible mechanisms. Maybe you are very young?
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 6:25:29 GMT
So we have no mechanism and no data. I rest my case. Not a leg to stand on, let alone a case. You were shown the data. Note that the scale that the trend is displayed in is in 5 points per year. Sampling a population of possible observables is the way data is gathered in all scientific disciplines. The randomness of the choice will be defended, and appropriate errors will be given. My comment that it looks as if the trend from LP is going strong is due to the secondary effect on the size of the observed spots. We are getting tiny spots for cycle 24. If by mechanism you mean a full fledged theory, the answer is that the science is not settled in this field, as it is not settled for many fields where turbulent chaotic phenomena appear. One gathers data to guess at possible mechanisms. Maybe you are very young? I asked for the raw data so it can be graphed...it is available. A possible theory to the visibility of spots is not a mechanism explaining a constant devaluing of magnetic values resulting in a sub 1500 figure some years up the track, a linear fall would not seem chaotic? The spots have been small recently but were not so during the first 3 months, these spots on the whole were also not measured. This months spots (2) though appearing smaller have been visibly darker. Lets plot the values and compare them against the recent activity, at least that is something concrete that can be evaluated. We have had 6 months of some sort of upward movement, how much has been sampled? The mechanism obviously does not exist.
|
|
radun
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 152
|
Post by radun on Jun 1, 2010 7:47:39 GMT
Quote 1: Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots, specks, and pores. You can see some of that explained here www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdfSchatten's work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted by most dynamo theorists.
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Jun 1, 2010 7:55:43 GMT
Not a leg to stand on, let alone a case. You were shown the data. Note that the scale that the trend is displayed in is in 5 points per year. Sampling a population of possible observables is the way data is gathered in all scientific disciplines. The randomness of the choice will be defended, and appropriate errors will be given. My comment that it looks as if the trend from LP is going strong is due to the secondary effect on the size of the observed spots. We are getting tiny spots for cycle 24. If by mechanism you mean a full fledged theory, the answer is that the science is not settled in this field, as it is not settled for many fields where turbulent chaotic phenomena appear. One gathers data to guess at possible mechanisms. Maybe you are very young? I asked for the raw data so it can be graphed...it is available. A possible theory to the visibility of spots is not a mechanism explaining a constant devaluing of magnetic values resulting in a sub 1500 figure some years up the track, a linear fall would not seem chaotic? The spots have been small recently but were not so during the first 3 months, these spots on the whole were also not measured. This months spots (2) though appearing smaller have been visually darker. Lets plot the values and compare them against the recent activity, at least that is something concrete that can be evaluated. The mechanism obviously does not exist. On the one hand you're implying there is no trend or that it has stopped and on the other you're saying this is just typical behaviour when entering a solar grand minimum. Livingston measures every spot he can. This has all been explained to you before, but it just seems to make you incoherent and angry. Do you think it's necessary to measure every male adult to determine the average height of men in the UK? If so, I need to complain to someone because I was missed out.
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 8:17:32 GMT
I asked for the raw data so it can be graphed...it is available. A possible theory to the visibility of spots is not a mechanism explaining a constant devaluing of magnetic values resulting in a sub 1500 figure some years up the track, a linear fall would not seem chaotic? The spots have been small recently but were not so during the first 3 months, these spots on the whole were also not measured. This months spots (2) though appearing smaller have been visually darker. Lets plot the values and compare them against the recent activity, at least that is something concrete that can be evaluated. The mechanism obviously does not exist. On the one hand you're implying there is no trend or that it has stopped and on the other you're saying this is just typical behaviour when entering a solar grand minimum. Livingston measures every spot he can. This has all been explained to you before, but it just seems to make you incoherent and angry. Do you think it's necessary to measure every male adult to determine the average height of men in the UK? If so, I need to complain to someone because I was missed out. Head in the sand perhaps? I am saying the recent trend has not been measured adequately, it has been 6 months. I am saying the downtrend before Dec is expected with grand minimum conditions (or any ending of a cycle), but even grand minima have an upramp in activity. I am interested in measuring this upramp, the measurements look to be very sparse over the last 6 months. This is an important time, if you are not taking measurements it might pay to reserve your opinion on the L&P theory, the upramp is where it will be tested. I am not the one getting angry.
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 8:35:02 GMT
There is also a big time difference in measurements taken before SC23 cycle max. The amount of records taken during that period is minuscule. For scientific purposes they should probably be discarded, but even keeping them there is nothing out of the ordinary.
I think those who support some sort of L&P effect should accept there has been a downtrend in the magnetic reading since SC23 max, but perhaps that is all so far. Way too early to put money on it.
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Jun 1, 2010 9:19:51 GMT
On the one hand you're implying there is no trend or that it has stopped and on the other you're saying this is just typical behaviour when entering a solar grand minimum. Livingston measures every spot he can. This has all been explained to you before, but it just seems to make you incoherent and angry. Do you think it's necessary to measure every male adult to determine the average height of men in the UK? If so, I need to complain to someone because I was missed out. Head in the sand perhaps? I am saying the recent trend has not been measured adequately, it has been 6 months. I am saying the downtrend before Dec is expected with grand minimum conditions (or any ending of a cycle), but even grand minima have an upramp in activity. I am interested in measuring this upramp, the measurements look to be very sparse over the last 6 months. This is an important time, if you are not taking measurements it might pay to reserve your opinion on the L&P theory, the umramp is where it will be tested. I am not the one getting angry. And what do you think of the divergence between SSN and F10.7 described here? arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4281v1.pdfSo you're saying this happens at the end of every cycle. Fair enough, can you provide some links to back that up?
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 9:29:24 GMT
Head in the sand perhaps? I am saying the recent trend has not been measured adequately, it has been 6 months. I am saying the downtrend before Dec is expected with grand minimum conditions (or any ending of a cycle), but even grand minima have an upramp in activity. I am interested in measuring this upramp, the measurements look to be very sparse over the last 6 months. This is an important time, if you are not taking measurements it might pay to reserve your opinion on the L&P theory, the upramp is where it will be tested. I am not the one getting angry. And what do you think of the divergence between SSN and F10.7 described here? arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4281v1.pdfSo you're saying this happens at the end of every cycle. Fair enough, can you provide some links to back that up? And you say I am incoherent, we are talking about the depleting gauss reading on the downside of a solar cycle. If you think it would be going the opposite direction you might need to provide the detail?
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Jun 1, 2010 9:50:37 GMT
And you say I am incoherent, we are talking about the depleting gauss reading on the downside of a solar cycle. If you think it would be going the opposite direction you might need to provide the detail? No, you claimed that sunspot gauss depletes at the end of every solar cycle. I'd just like some references for that statement. (Genuinely I don't know) Did you read Leif's Microwave Flux paper?
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 10:55:03 GMT
And you say I am incoherent, we are talking about the depleting gauss reading on the downside of a solar cycle. If you think it would be going the opposite direction you might need to provide the detail? No, you claimed that sunspot gauss depletes at the end of every solar cycle. I'd just like some references for that statement. (Genuinely I don't know) Did you read Leif's Microwave Flux paper? Depletes after cycle max would be more accurate. I have read the paper a few times and others like it,, but fail to see your point.
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Jun 1, 2010 11:18:31 GMT
No, you claimed that sunspot gauss depletes at the end of every solar cycle. I'd just like some references for that statement. (Genuinely I don't know) Did you read Leif's Microwave Flux paper? Depletes after cycle max would be more accurate. I have read the paper a few times and others like it,, but fail to see your point. From Leif's powerpoint here: www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdfSpeculations • There appears to be a general secular change in sunspot behavior • F10.7, supported by the Japanese fixed-frequency observations, is consistent with this pattern • Sunspots do not appear to form as expected • The Cycle 23/24 anomalous minimum may be a part of a change in the state of solar activity Fine. But again, point me to some sources that support your statement. (I'm not making any judgements here.)
|
|
clive
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 50
|
Post by clive on Jun 1, 2010 12:10:58 GMT
Depletes after cycle max would be more accurate. I have read the paper a few times and others like it,, but fail to see your point. From Leif's powerpoint here: www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdfSpeculations • There appears to be a general secular change in sunspot behavior • F10.7, supported by the Japanese fixed-frequency observations, is consistent with this pattern • Sunspots do not appear to form as expected • The Cycle 23/24 anomalous minimum may be a part of a change in the state of solar activity Fine. But again, point me to some sources that support your statement. (I'm not making any judgements here.) You can do your own homework, the magnetic intensity is strongest at maximum. Each maximum reaches different heights and its been slipping on a grand scale since SC21. But this is a divergence, waiting on Leif for the up to date raw data. I will plot against it every decent spot recorded this year, and watch how many have been measured.
|
|
|
Post by annav on Jun 1, 2010 12:27:14 GMT
Clive
"But this is a divergence, waiting on Leif for the up to date raw data. I will plot against it every decent spot recorded this year, and watch how many have been measured. "
Can you try to understand the concept of sampling?
L&P are given time on the necessary instruments when it is convenient for the main users of the telescope. Therefore they rely on sampling and the methodology of sampling, which is well established, from marketing to physics.
When measurements are done correctly the only difference between covering the complete sample and a randomly picked sample would be in the error bars.
|
|